Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1887-07-13
Some Plain Questions Answered.
A correspondent sends series of questions
to the Christian at Work on the so-called
"High License" Bill, which we subjoin

to the Christian at Work on the so-called
"High License" Bill, which we subjoin
To The Editor Of the Christian at York:
Will you kindly permit one of the GILL
| advised' referred to in your first editorial
of February II, to attempt a brief reply to
your queries and ask some in reply ? You
admit, as understand you, that prohibit
tion may be the only practical remedy for
our great social evil. We certainly do So
believe. But you ask why refuse to check
the evil by placing it on. high tax or high
license, when it is not possible to have pro-
hibition at once. 1t is fair question, and
deserves a candid answer, and here it is /:
1. We do not believe that high tax
does check the evil. It has not done it in
Chicago and other cities in Illinois, nor in
Nebraska, according to the statements of
those best informed. The number OF sa-
looms in Chicago is nearly, if not quite, as
large as before high license went into effect
there, and the police records show con-
stantly increasing number of arrests fer
drunkenness and crimes resulting from
drunkenness. The same is true in Nebras-
ka. Why should it not be so? Take any
ward in your city, double the license fee, or
tax, and thereby close up, say, third OF
the saloons. Suppose there were sixty sa-
looms in the ward, say an average OF three
to the block. The high tax closes one OF
these.
2. Does it follow that only two thirds the
amount of intoxicants heretofore sold will
hereafter be disposed Of? Is it probable
that the victim of rum, burning with his
unnatural thirst, will turn about and go
home sober, because he finds the door of his
accustomed haunt closed, when at the next
corner there is drink in plenty of every
kind and vileness.
3. You speak of the awful temptation of
the cheap drinking saloon. We, whose ill
advised conduct you so much deplore, regad
the gilded saloons as by far the most dan
gerous and awful dens of the arch tempter.
But for them our noble born and we'll bred
young men would be comparatively safe
from his wiles.
4. We do not believe it right to license
the saloon business; or, as you prefer the
the privilege of carrying the business on
upon the payment of tax, either high or
low. The amount of the tax does not affect
the right or wrong of the business. 1t is
no less an evil because it pays we'll for its
privilege than though it paid nothing.
5. We place it with gambling and other
evils which it fosters. 1t would be
wrong to have gambling CARRIED on up
on the payment of high tax that would
shut up some Of the small concerns. Will
not the same reasoning hold regarding the
greater evil of saloon keeping? The reply
that in the one case public sentiment favors
prohibition and in the other it does not,
should be urged by those who are set to
mold public sentiment. If public sentiment
is not right on this question it is their duty
to try and make it so, and not to advocate
the continuance of an evil on the payment
of large sum of money, merely because
the people are not educated up to the point
of voting it down. When will they reach
that point if our DR.. Croshys and must we
say it-our good and faithful Christian at
Work persist in charging men and women,
as true and devoted in every good work as
themselves, ''as playing into the Hands of
the very worst elements, " because they can
not in conscience do other than oppose the
principles of license, as applied to the &C.
cursed business of dealing in body and soul
DESTROYING rum.